linux-kernel - Re: [lustre-devel] [PATCH 2/3] staging:lustre: remove kernel defines in userland headers

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 22 May 2015 08:24:34 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	"Simmons, James A." <simmonsja@...l.gov>
Cc:	'Dan Carpenter' <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
	James Simmons <jsimmons@...radead.org>,
	"devel@...verdev.osuosl.org" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
	James Simmons <uja.ornl@...oo.com>,
	James Simmons <uja.ornl@...il.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
	"HPDD-discuss@...1.01.org" <HPDD-discuss@...1.01.org>,
	"lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org" <lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org>
Subject: Re: [lustre-devel] [PATCH 2/3] staging:lustre: remove kernel
 defines in userland headers

On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 15:12 +0000, Simmons, James A. wrote:
> >>  typedef struct lnet_peer {
> >> -	struct list_head	lp_hashlist;	  /* chain on peer hash */
> >> -	struct list_head	lp_txq;	       /* messages blocking for tx credits */
> >> -	struct list_head	lp_rtrq;	      /* messages blocking for router credits */
> >> -	struct list_head	lp_rtr_list;	  /* chain on router list */
> >> -	int	       lp_txcredits;	 /* # tx credits available */
> >> -	int	       lp_mintxcredits;      /* low water mark */
> >> -	int	       lp_rtrcredits;	/* # router credits */
> >> -	int	       lp_minrtrcredits;     /* low water mark */
> >> -	unsigned int      lp_alive:1;	   /* alive/dead? */
> >> -	unsigned int      lp_notify:1;	  /* notification outstanding? */
> >> -	unsigned int      lp_notifylnd:1;       /* outstanding notification for LND? */
> >> -	unsigned int      lp_notifying:1;       /* some thread is handling notification */
> >> -	unsigned int      lp_ping_notsent;      /* SEND event outstanding from ping */
> >> -	int	       lp_alive_count;       /* # times router went dead<->alive */
> >> -	long	      lp_txqnob;	    /* bytes queued for sending */
> >> -	unsigned long	lp_timestamp;	 /* time of last aliveness news */
> >> -	unsigned long	lp_ping_timestamp;    /* time of last ping attempt */
> >> -	unsigned long	lp_ping_deadline;     /* != 0 if ping reply expected */
> >> -	unsigned long	lp_last_alive;	/* when I was last alive */
> >> -	unsigned long	lp_last_query;	/* when lp_ni was queried last time */
> >> -	lnet_ni_t	*lp_ni;		/* interface peer is on */
> >> -	lnet_nid_t	lp_nid;	       /* peer's NID */
> >> -	int	       lp_refcount;	  /* # refs */
> >> -	int			lp_cpt;		/* CPT this peer attached on */
> >> +	/* chain on peer hash */
> >> +	struct list_head	lp_hashlist;
> >> +	/* messages blocking for tx credits */
> >> +	struct list_head	lp_txq;
> >> +	/* messages blocking for router credits */
> >> +	struct list_head	lp_rtrq;
> >> +	/* chain on router list */
> >> +	struct list_head	lp_rtr_list;
> >> +	/* # tx credits available */
> >> +	int			lp_txcredits;
> >> +	/* low water mark */
> >> +	int			lp_mintxcredits;
> >> +	/* # router credits */
> >> +	int			lp_rtrcredits;
> >> +	/* low water mark */
> >> +	int			lp_minrtrcredits;
> >> +	/* alive/dead? */
> >> +	unsigned int		lp_alive:1;
> >> +	/* notification outstanding? */
> >> +	unsigned int		lp_notify:1;
> >> +	/* outstanding notification for LND? */
> >> +	unsigned int		lp_notifylnd:1;
> >
> >This new block of declarations is uglier than the original.  Don't make
> >things uglier.
> 
> Might be ugly but it makes checkpatch.pl happy.  So it is a choice between
> making checkpatch.pl happy about staying in the 80 character limit or looking
> nice and chekpatch.pl being unhappy.

I would choose looking nice every time.

checkpatch is stupid.  Please don't let it control you.

Maybe it'd be better to add another --ignore type just for
comments that extend longer than the maximum line length to
checkpatch.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/